UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2302
LOUISE JAMISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JEFFERSON-PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; UNUM
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED;
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CA-04-23111-5-MBS)
Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: June 13, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Christine Gantt Sorenson, HAYNSWORTH
SINKLER BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Louise Jamison appeals the district court’s order
granting Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company’s motion for
judgment and dismissing her claims of wrongful denial of benefits
and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (2000). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Jamison claims Jefferson Pilot denied her benefits after
she became disabled from her job. Because the benefits plan at
issue grants the plan administrator discretionary authority to make
coverage determinations, we review the district court’s judgment
for an abuse of discretion. Bynum v. Cigna Healthcare of North
Carolina, Inc., 287 F.3d 305, 311 (4th Cir. 2002). Jefferson
Pilot’s policy covering Jamison ended December 31, 1998. As
Jamison failed to show that she was disabled prior to 1999, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Jefferson
Pilot’s motion for judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.
We also deny Jefferson Pilot’s motion for damages and costs under
Fed. R. App. P. 38 because we cannot conclude Jamison pursued this
litigation for malicious purposes, see Dyntel Corp. v. Ebner, 120
F.3d 488, 493 (4th Cir. 1997), nor has she previously filed
numerous frivolous suits, see Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th
Cir. 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -